President Trump’s election-law moment is turning into something much uglier: a double-digit losing streak in court for the Justice Department and its aligned efforts. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, told reporters on Monday that the administration is “losing literally every single case it’s involved in,” adding that the DOJ typically would not lose more than one or two trial-court cases a year. “We are well into the double digits with this administration, and the year is not even half over yet,” Becker said.

That matters because the administration is not just litigating abstract principles. It is trying to reshape election mechanics that, in the U.S., are primarily run by state and local officials. Over the past two weeks, district-level judges have ruled against Trump’s most significant voting-related executive orders, blocked efforts to compel states to hand voter rolls to the Justice Department, and outlawed the Department of Homeland Security’s modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system. The courts are repeatedly treating the President’s push as overreach, not policy innovation.

Start with the administration’s flagship legislative push: the SAVE America Act. The House of Representatives passed the bill, which would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote and require photo identification when casting ballots. The article notes that the SAVE America Act is doomed to fail in Congress, and that Trump is at war with his own party over it. That political friction is not happening in a vacuum. It is landing on top of a judicial environment that keeps shrinking the administration’s room to maneuver.

In parallel, the government is running enforcement and data efforts tied to the same broader agenda. The administration expanded the SAVE database, previously focused on noncitizens, by adding Social Security records and other data from native-born Americans to conduct checks of voter eligibility. A judge said the expanded system “knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote.” On the operational side, judges are not buying the premise that the President can rewire elections nationally through executive action while waiting for Congress to catch up.

One prominent example is the March executive order aimed at changing how the Postal Service could handle voting by mail. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani blocked much of it, writing that “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.” She underlined the word “does not” for extra emphasis. In other words, the courts are drawing a bright line between national political arguments about fraud and the constitutional structure of election administration.

Other judges are underscoring the pattern. Cathy Bissoon, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania, blocked the Department of Justice’s push to obtain voter data from the state and wrote that the administration’s efforts have been rebuked “by every court to consider them.” Bissoon added an eyebrow-raising footnote: “The administration’s demands have yielded one unexpected benefit, namely, bipartisan agreement. Five of the district judges are Trump appointees.” She punctuated the point even further: Gallagher, a Trump appointee nominated in 2019, dismissed a DOJ lawsuit against Maryland seeking voting records, writing that the “Court joins every court to have addressed this issue.” The upshot is that even judges appointed during Trump’s presidency are repeatedly finding the government’s approach unpersuasive.

The Supreme Court is adding pressure from the top floor too. The article states that Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on Monday that states could allow mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, essentially rejecting Trump’s argument that late-arriving votes fuel fraud and distrust. Taken together with the district court defeats, the administration’s litigation posture looks less like a winning strategy and more like a campaign of repeated attempts blocked at multiple levels.

So why does this streak matter beyond courtroom headlines? Because the policy goal is enormous and time-sensitive. After Trump’s 2020 election loss, the president and his allies filed dozens of lawsuits to overturn results, and the article says they lost almost every case. It also cites a Washington Post review finding that a month after Joe Biden’s victory, 86 judges had ruled against Trump or his supporters. That record is now being mirrored in the current cycle via efforts ranging from voting policy changes to voter roll management and data acquisition.

Meanwhile, the administration can still influence elections in other ways that do not require the same immediate courtroom validation. The article notes the Supreme Court’s April Louisiana v. Callais ruling gutted the Voting Rights Act, clearing the way for several Republican-led states to redraw congressional maps and eliminate Democrat-leaning districts with large portions of minority voters. It also notes that on Tuesday the Supreme Court rolled back campaign-finance restrictions on political parties, which Trump hailed as “A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS.” And at the state level, pro-Trump lawmakers have implemented miniature versions of SAVE or other parts of the vision; at least 10 states have voluntarily turned over the personal information of millions of voters to the Justice Department. In other words, litigation is only one lever. But when courts keep shutting the door on the most direct levers, the remaining paths are either legislative fights, state-by-state adoption, or Supreme Court fights.

Publicly, the White House is shrugging off setbacks. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, told the outlet in a statement that President Trump is committed to “totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls” and that existing laws give the Justice Department what it needs to compel states to maintain clean voter rolls. The Justice Department spokesperson also said the administration is “devoting significant resources” to continue the legal battle, including litigation focused on voter roll maintenance. Privately, the article describes frustration and legislative quagmire as the SAVE America Act stalls, and shouting matches and standoffs over strategy with Republican lawmakers leave Congress struggling.

For executives, operators, and investors watching the governance environment, this is more than political drama. It is a case study in how aggressive regulatory and compliance-adjacent campaigns collide with constitutional constraints and institutional capacity. When courts repeatedly block the operational implementation steps, the strategy shifts from execution to persistence, and the risk profile expands for anyone expecting fast policy outcomes. The administration’s cold courtroom streak is also a signal to peers in government-adjacent work: if your plan depends on sweeping federal control over inherently decentralized systems, expect the system to push back, often with judges appointed by the same political coalition.